AND
NOW TO WIT, this 17th day of May, 2018, upon
consideration of the State's Motion for Reargument and
the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

1.
After the Court issued its Opinion and granted suppression in
favor of Defendant, the State filed a timely Motion for
Reargument on March 23, 2018. Defendant filed a response on
April 2, 2018. A hearing on the Motion for Reargument was
held on April 30, 2018.

2. The
facts underlying the State's Motion for Reargument have
been previously described by this Court in its March 16, 2018
Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to
Suppress.[1]

3. The
State maintains there was no Fourth Amendment violation in
what began as a routine traffic stop and resulted in the
Wilmington Police Department (" WPD") officer
calling in a drug detection K-9 Unit to conduct a dog sniff
of the vehicle that yielded evidence sought to be used
against Defendant. The State argues the Fourth Amendment was
not implicated because there was no measurable extension of
the stop and thus no reasonable articulable suspicion was
required by the WPD.

4. The
bases for the State's Motion for Reargument are two-fold.
First, it argues that this Court misapprehended the facts
when it ruled that the officer "detoured" from his
mission of issuing the ticket, and thus found that the
officer measurably extended the traffic stop into something
more. Second, the State argues that because this Court
improperly found the existence of a measurable extension, the
Court further misapprehended the law by requiring that the
officer have reasonable articulable suspicion to justify
calling the K-9 Unit. The State contends that no reasonable
articulable suspicion was necessary because the officer was
still issuing the ticket when the dog sniff occurred. Thus,
it argues, had the Court properly applied the facts and the
law, it would have denied suppression.

6.
Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) permits the Court to
reconsider "its findings of fact, conclusions of law, or
judgment. . . ."[4] "Delaware law places a heavy burden
on a [party] seeking relief pursuant to Rule
59."[5] To prevail on a motion for reargument, the
movant must demonstrate that "the Court has overlooked a
controlling precedent or legal principle[ ], or the Court has
misapprehended the law or facts such as would have changed
the outcome of the underlying decision."[6] Further,
"[a] motion for reargument is not a device for raising
new arguments, "[7] nor is it "intended to rehash the
arguments already decided by the court."[8] Such tactics
frustrate the interests of judicial efficiency and the
orderly process of reaching finality on the
issues.[9] The moving party has the burden of
demonstrating "newly discovered evidence, a change of
law, or manifest injustice."[10]

Discussion

7. This
Court determined that the conduct of WPD law enforcement
enlarged the boundaries of the ordinary tasks associated with
a lawful routine traffic stop such that they prolonged the
duration and scope of the traffic stop without reasonable
articulable suspicion to justify the seizure (i.e., the
second detention.) Specifically, the State takes issue with
the ruling and the characterization that "Officer
Wilkers detoured from his task of issuing the ticket
to make the call to Officer Caez and wait for the K-9 Unit to
arrive. This Court considers this a measurable extension of
the initial stop."[11]

8. The
State claims the Court misapprehended facts or
mischaracterized the conduct of the officer where there was
no such "detour" because the officer was
simultaneously calling the K-9 Unit to the scene while
working on issuing Defendant his traffic ticket, and the K-9
unit arrived before the officer actually issued the ticket.
Thus, the State argues no reasonable articulable suspicion
was required.

9. The
State re-styles the same unsuccessful argument that this
Court rejected in the original Opinion, wherein the Court
noted:

The State's argument that because the officer was
expeditiously working on both at the same time and thus
no reasonable articulable suspicion was required lacks
merit, especially where the officer made his intent
clear. Two other officers had already arrived on the
scene when Officers decided to call for Officer Caez. The
purpose of the call was not to have four officers-and a
dog-assist with issuing a traffic ticket.

10.
This Court conducted its fact-specific analysis of this stop
as to both duration and scope and chose the word
"detoured, " in part, as utilized in the 2015
decision of Rodriguez v. United States,[12]
The Rodriguez Court identifies how "[l]ike a
Terry stop, the tolerable duration of police
inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the
seizure's 'mission'-to address the traffic
violation that warranted the stop."[13] Here, the
State fails to establish how the Court misapprehended the
facts that the acts of the officer stayed true to the mission
of issuing the ticket.

11. The
facts accepted by the Court included the officer's
testimony that he knew before he pulled the vehicle over that
he had sufficient information to cite the driver with
improper window tint, when he verified that the vehicle
registration did not include the proper waiver. The officer
testified that Defendant and passenger provided appropriate
documents and truthful responses to ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.